SPRING, BENNER, AND WALKER TOWNSHIPS AND THE CENTRE COUNTY SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY

Transcription

1 SWANA RECYCLING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE STUDY FINAL REPORT REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM EVALUATION SPRING, BENNER & WALKER TOWNSHIPS CENTRE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Prepared for: SPRING, BENNER, AND WALKER TOWNSHIPS AND THE CENTRE COUNTY SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY Prepared by: HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA APRIL 2008

2 REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM EVALUATION SPRING, BENNER & WALKER TOWNSHIPS Table of Contents Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION Scope of Work BACKGROUND...10 PART 1 REGIONAL WASTE AND RECYCLING STUDY EXISTING WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RECYCLING PROGRAMS Spring Township Waste Management Benner Township Waste Management Walker Township Waste Management Survey of Local Waste Hauling Companies Comparison of Existing Municipal Programs Deficiencies of Existing Individual Subscription Waste Management Programs REGIONAL WASTE COLLECTION AND RECYCLING SERVICES Why Cooperate? Why Regionalize Waste Management and Recycling? Considerations for Implementing a Regional Waste and Recycling Contract REGIONAL WASTE AND RECYCLING PROGRAM STRUCTURE Recommended Waste and Recycling Structure REGIONAL IMPLEMENTING MECHANISMS Public Meeting to Select Implementing Mechanisms Participating in the Centre Region Council of Governments (COG) Contract Cooperative, Uniform Bidding for a Regional Waste and Recycling Contract PAY-AS-YOU-THROW CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS...36 PART 2 REGIONAL LEAF AND YARD WASTE EVALUATION EVALUATING REGIONAL LEAF AND YARD WASTE MANAGEMENT EXISTING LEAF AND YARD WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES IN SBW Spring Township Benner Township Walker Township Existing SBW Regional Leaf and Yard Waste Management Overview REGIONAL COMPOST FACILITIES AND PROCESSING OPPORTUNITIES Leaf and Yard Waste Processing Opportunities LEAF AND YARD WASTE QUANTITIES NEW OR EXPANDED COMPOST SITES IN OR NEAR SBW Permit-By-Rule Application Site Development And Start-up Equipment BARRIERS FOR ESTABLISHING REGIONAL LEAF AND YARD WASTE MGT. PROGRAM CONCEPTUAL PLANNING FOR REGIONAL LEAF AND YARD WASTE MGT Goals for Regional Leaf and Yard Waste management Strategy for a Regional Leaf and Yard Waste Management Program CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS...51 i

3 FIGURES Figure 1 Aerial Map of Spring, Benner and Walker Townships includes Recycling Locations Figure 2 Drop-off Recycling Sites Figure 3 Regional Composting Map APPENDICES Appendix A - Local Hauler Listing and Waste Hauler Survey Summary Appendix B - Comparison of Existing Waste Management Attributes Appendix C - Municipal Ordinances: Spring Township & College Township Appendix D - Implementing Mechanisms Graphic and Descriptive Representations Appendix E - Public Meeting Records (October 9, 2007) Appendix F - Existing and Proposed Regional Contract System Cost Comparison Appendix G - Centre County Permitted Compost Facilities Appendix H - State College Borough Yard Waste Disposal Agreement ii

4 REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM EVALUATION SPRING, BENNER & WALKER TOWNSHIPS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PART 1 REGIONAL WASTE AND RECYCLING STUDY Gannett Fleming, Inc. (GF) evaluated the implementation of a regional waste and recycling management system in Spring, Benner and Walker Townships (SBW) in Centre County, Pennsylvania (Figure 1). The current private subscription waste systems includes at least seven (7) local hauling companies and the three Townships waste, recycling and composting programs operate independently from each other with little cooperative/regionalized planning. GF investigated the existing waste management systems, developed a baseline waste management structure, and identified two primary implementing methods for regionalizing SBW waste management. As part of evaluating the existing programs GF completed a survey of area waste haulers. Appendix A includes a list of local hauler and the summary table of the hauler survey findings. A comparison table of SBW waste systems is included in Appendix B. As summarized, GF identified the following deficiencies in the existing SBW individual subscription systems: Averaging $276 per year per household, SBW residential trash fees are 35 percent higher than nearby municipalities with municipal-wide contract collection systems. The multi-hauler collection systems are inefficient primarily due to overlapping hauling routes, which contribute to public nuisances (e.g. truck traffic, noise, collection schedule confusion, roadway damage, etc.). Excess waste collection vehicles contribute to environmental harms from fuel consumption and pollutants. Some waste haulers do not have recycling or offer limited recycling service. Current waste systems are operated by the haulers with arrangements with homeowners so the SBW region has very little program oversight and no contractual service arrangements; the municipalities are not able to plan for increased waste management needs and community growth. Poor recycling rates range between 6 and 11 percent, which is below the 35 percent State recycling goal. There is no effective system in place for all households and haulers to be held accountable for proper waste management. An unknown portion of households, perhaps 10 percent based on Township observations, do not subscribe for waste service. Illegal waste disposal is common and not easily or actively enforced. Special material programs for bulky wastes, tires, and white goods are limited and expensive (compared with including bulky item collection under municipal contract). GF notes that structuring and offering convenient, consistent and comprehensive waste and recycling services to all households will result in an immediate increase in program participation 1

5 and program performance while minimizing (not eliminating) the level of program oversight and enforcement required. GF identified the following preferred waste and recycling program structure for SBW. Section 5.0 includes a detailed description of this structure. Overall Waste System Consistent program structure supported by similar ordinances in SBW. Clearly defined waste management services secured through a competitive bid process and executed contract(s) for the SBW service area. As feasible, consistent with the successful surrounding waste management programs. Waste Structure Once-per-week trash collection with trash bag/container set-out limits. Some form of Pay-As-You-Throw waste collection (if implementation is not a barrier). Designated collection or trash districts (considered) that limit cost-prohibitive curbside service in certain rural areas. Bulky wastes, construction/demolition and white goods (appliances) service. Recycling Structure Curb sort recyclables collection program. Same recyclable materials collected in each Township (those accepted by the CCSWA; see section 5.0). Residential and commercial recycling requirements. Administration/Implementation Recover a small per-household fee for ongoing beneficial waste and recycling programs. Ongoing recordkeeping, cost tracking, and program evaluation. Effective enforcement. Ongoing education (require hauler to educate at least once per year and with changes to services). Benefits from Regionalization GF determined that regionalizing the SBW waste management systems will result in substantial and ongoing cost savings to the residents and to participating municipalities. Additionally, a contractually-based waste management program will allow for an improved ability to plan for future growth and meet the evolving waste management and recycling needs of the regional community. A regionalized program will increase the level of waste and recycling services available to residents, and simultaneously lower the current per-household rates. 2

6 This Report contains an in-depth look at regionalization, and in summary, regionalization can accomplish the following for SBW: Reduce the cost per household by 20 to 35 percent; a realized savings for residents estimated between 1.6 million and 2.0 million dollars over a three-year contract period. $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 Improved overall collection efficiency and program performance: Planned routes and consistent collection schedules, fewer missed stops, improved participation rates in waste and recycling, facilitated enforcement through contractual agreement that hold waste and recycling service providers accountable for meeting service standards. Additional service: Additional collection services (e.g. bulky items, leaf waste collection, etc.), can be included at no extra or separate fee. Managed Competition: Periodic bidding allows local and regional hauling companies to compete for service. This process ensures the Townships receive fair, competitive pricing on behalf of the affected residents, while allowing the flexibility to adjust services in the future. SBW can help residents and each municipality manage inflating waste and recycling costs. Increased Waste Diversion from Landfill: Increase reported recycling rates (for curbside and other recyclables) from the current 6-11 percent to 35 percent, meeting the State goal. Refer to Recycling Rate Comparison Chart below. 3

7 Facilitate community planning efforts for current and future growth with opportunities to have a direct impact on improving public welfare as well as the aesthetics of the regional community. Improve program compliance and enforceability. Facilitate education through consistent education materials and shared resources while reducing education-related costs. 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Regional Implementing Mechanisms GF evaluated a variety of implementing mechanisms (See Appendix D) and identified two preferred implementing strategies that can be used to implement a region waste system in SBW: Participating in the Existing Centre Region COG Contract. Uniform Bidding (by SBW) for a Regional Waste and Recycling Contract. 4

8 1 - Centre Region COG Contract (rebid) If a favorable arrangement can be decided allowing SBW to participate in the upcoming COG refuse contract rebid process, SBW can potentially reduce the average cost per household from $23.00 per month currently paid by SBW residents to $14.74 per month; a 35 percent cost reduction. This is a total projected savings to residents of approximately 2 million dollars over the 3-year contract period, assuming all residents receive service. Section 4.0 contains advantages and disadvantages, with some primary advantages for participating in the COG being: Joining a proven waste management program (facilitates implementation). Maximizing the economies of scale by adding more households (units) to the contract, potentially lowering costs even further than other implementing options. Minimized administrative duties for the Townships. Proven effective programs and educational resources. Increased services including curbside recycling and bulky item collection. Decreased wastes and increased recycling. S B Existing Centre Region COG B I D W The timing on joining the COG refuse contract is critical and negotiations should begin in the second quarter of Uniform Bidding (by SBW) for a Regional Waste and Recycling Contract SBW can also implement a cost effective and uniform regional waste management system with one municipality taking the lead in the competitive municipal bidding process for the multi-municipal service area. GF estimates that the average monthly cost per household for waste and recycling service would be percent lower than current or future rates with the multi-hauler system. A 30 percent lower rate (at this time) would mean SBW residents would pay $ per year annually. SBW residents can save over $544,000 per year or over 1.6 million dollars through the term of a 3-year contract administered by SBW. Adding a PAYT or financially incentive-based structure as described in Section 7.0 is recommended but will require additional planning and additional enforcement and therefore must be confirmed by SBW. Aside from the economics, some primary advantages for participating in a regional waste and recycling contract implemented by SBW are: S B W Uniform Bid B I D 5

9 A tailored waste program to meet SBW residential needs. Increased levels of service for residents (e.g. recycling, bulky item pick-up, etc). Ongoing ability to get fair, competitive waste management costs and comprehensive service. Decreased waste disposal and increased recycling. Potential to work through intermunicipal agreements, which reduces municipal bidding requirements. Reduced truck traffic and associated nuisances, including reduced environmental impact. Improved residential and hauler waste management compliance and equitable service since all household will receive and pay for affordable, comprehensive services. See section 4.0 for more advantages and disadvantages of implementing this option. Both implementing options reviewed will achieve a cost effective regional waste system that will improve the overall performance of SBW waste management. It will be the decision and votes of SBW officials that determine the future planning direction and advantages and disadvantages of both options should be considered carefully. Although GF will not make this final decision for SBW, it has been determined through this evaluation that a SBW partnership in the Centre Region COG Contract has some sizeable advantages that make this option not only attractive, but a streamlined approach to move into a regionalized program in the next two years. The cost savings, economies of scale, valuable expertise, educational programs, and administrative assistance distinguish the COG refuse contract option and minimize some of the barriers that exist when starting a new contract collection program. After gaining experience within the COG Contract, SBW could revisit their options and enter into the waste management arena through their own separate regional contract. Recommendations GF presents the following recommended actions for the municipal officials of Spring, Benner and Walker Townships: Officials, individually and in concert, should review the information in this Report and formalize the commitment to establish a contractually-based regional waste and recycling program. This process could include a committee of representatives from the Townships and the Centre County Solid Waste Authority. SBW should determine the most advantageous implementing mechanism either participating with the Centre Region COG Contract or establishing a SBW regional contract. Regardless of what final direction or action is taken it is recommended all three Townships standardize their recycling programs and waste management methods and requirements and enact similar solid waste and recycling ordinances. As feasible, these standardized programs should be consistent with methods and requirements in the existing successful municipal programs in the region. Standardization and consistency with local programs will facilitate future waste and recycling planning initiatives. Utilize the recommended waste and recycling program structure in this Report as a guideline for the service specifications sought in a regional waste contract. Give serious consideration to PAYT, as it will dramatically increase waste diversion from landfills. 6

10 Execute formal contracts or agreements for services regardless of implementing mechanism. Do not let the vocal minority determine the outcome of this important planning strategy that will bring many advantages to the regional community. Overcome any negative public perceptions and promote the program through an effective educational campaign. Build strong relationships early in the process with local media, and thoroughly explain the positive and long-term benefits and opportunities that are at stake. Educational materials can be newsletters, flyers, brochures, website or other Township communications already in place. Fact sheets about contracted waste hauling, illegal dumping, open burning, recycling and a variety of other topics are available free of charge at the Professional Recyclers of Pennsylvania (PROP) website: Periodically reevaluate the regional contract to determine its continued efficiency and consider additional options as they might arise to facilitate continued regional planning. GF encourages the CCSWA to host an annual Centre County Region Compost Summit that is designed to get Centre region municipalities, farmers, compost facilities and other interested parties together to discuss composting solutions. Regardless of what alternative is selected, it is essential the Townships new program has a fundamentally sound waste collection and recycling structure that is convenient for residents, is cost effective, and effectively manages waste and diverts materials to recycling. Standardizing waste and recycling practices in all three Townships, and supporting these with similar ordinances, will improve the ability to manage and make improvements to waste and recycling programs in the future. Executive Summary PART 2 REGIONAL LEAF AND YARD WASTE STUDY As a first step, it will be beneficial for SBW elected officials to confirm the direction of a contractually-based regional waste and recycling management program before enhancing the regional leaf and yard waste program, since there can be advantages for planning these programs simultaneously. SBW s existing leaf and yard waste management programs are improving gradually, but for the most part this is being done without cooperative planning and regional participants in mind. Encouraging backyard composting through education, while at the same time, prohibiting burning, dumping and other illegal disposal activities by offering disposal/processing options and through enforcement are simple and effective management strategies that will increase leaf and yard waste diversion to recycling. SBW will face barriers and making regional composting an ongoing initiative will require effort when other municipal and public initiatives take priority. These barriers can be overcome 7

11 provided the leaf and yard waste programs proposed for SBW build upon realistic program changes and diversion goals. Practical leaf and yard waste collection programs should not be cost-prohibitive. There are many local opportunities available for SBW to cooperate with their neighbors to regionalize and enhance their leaf and yard waste collection and composting programs. Likely, a combination of more than one option will be optimal (refer to Section 3.0 for descriptions of these cooperative arrangements). Cost effective arrangements are available locally: Use Borough of Bellefonte Compost Site for residential yard waste drop-off (Spring Township; possibly Benner and/or Walker Townships) Enter Yard Waste Disposal Contract with Borough of State College (for truck deliveries of leaf and yard waste) Utilize Penn State University Compost Site (leaves) University Area Joint Authority (UAJA) Organics Program Possible future leaf processing option Local Farms/Land Application of Yard Wastes (e.g. Tait Farm) Equipment Sharing/Cost Sharing (leaf vacuum trucks, yard waste grinders, etc.) Processing Equipment Rentals Rent grinders, trommel screens, etc. as needed Multi-Municipal Leaf Collection A municipality (SBW or other) that operates leaf vacuum trucks could provide curbside leaf collection service in another municipality. New or Expanded Compost Site(s) A joint-municipal effort could be used to cost effectively develop or expand one (possibly more) compost sites in Spring, Benner or Walker Townships or another nearby municipality. GF has provided a number of recommendations in Part 2 of this Report and these are summarized in the bullets below. As a starting point, SBW should identify the level of ongoing commitment from elected officials to support future leaf and yard waste management programs. The programs should be implemented in a decentralized approach with regional neighbors, processors (i.e. compost facilities) and resource sharing in mind. Standardize SBW leaf and yard waste collection programs and support them with updated solid waste and anti-burning ordinances. Prioritize backyard composting education, efficient curbside collection of leaves where household density is favorable, and one or more convenient public drop-off sites for brush. Residents from Spring, Benner and Walker Townships should be provided at least one drop-off location, that at a minimum, accepts brush for recycling (e.g. grinding into mulch). 8

12 In the near term it is not recommended that SBW pursue the development of a new regional compost site unless arrangements with local municipal compost facilities, brush drop-off points, and farms cannot cost-effectively accommodate the needs of SBW for leaf and yard waste processing. Mutually beneficial arrangements with regional participants for leaf and yard waste processing services should be reinforced with written agreements/contracts. Applicable sites in SBW that are used for composting should be permitted under the Permit-By-Rule application process and operated according to PADEP guidelines. SBW should pursue state Recycling Grant funding as necessary to help offset the costs of eligible containers and equipment and other costs associated with developing new, or improving existing leaf and yard waste programs. Walker Township should work with the CCSWA in the preparation of a Section 902 Recycling Grant to recover costs incurred from enhancing their yard waste program/drop-off site in The CCSWA should be used as a resource for educational materials, grant assistance and permit-byrule guidance. 9

13 REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM EVALUATION SPRING, BENNER & WALKER TOWNSHIPS 1.0 INTRODUCTION Spring, Benner and Walker Townships (SBW) are located in south central Centre County, Pennsylvania (refer to Figure 1 at the end of this report). On behalf of SBW, the Centre County Solid Waste Authority (CCSWA) submitted a Recycling Technical Assistance application to secure funding to evaluate cooperative municipal arrangements for waste collection, recycling and leaf and yard waste management. The Recycling Technical Assistance program is a partnership with the Solid Waste Authority of North America (SWANA), the Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors, and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) that supports municipalities interested in improving their recycling programs. Each Township was awarded $7,500 in technical assistance to be provided by Gannett Fleming, Inc. (GF). 1.1 Scope of Work Based on discussions with the CCSWA, the following scope of work was developed for completion of the Spring, Benner and Walker Township project. Task #1 Task #2 Task #3 GF will gather and review background information for SBW that will support the development of guidance related to the implementation of a regionalized curbside collection program and leaf and yard waste management program. GF will evaluate alternatives and provide guidance and recommendations for establishing a regional curbside recyclables collection program and regional leaf and yard waste management program for SBW. GF will prepare and provide a report of findings and recommendations. This task includes a review of the report by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) and response to PADEP comments. Additionally, an electronic file of the final report will be submitted to PADEP of the project conclusions and findings. Both an electronic and hardcopy version of the report will be provided to each Township and the CCSWA. 2.0 BACKGROUND The planned and regulated growth of our communities is necessary to ensure a future society that is socially, economically and environmentally sustainable. Spring, Benner and Walker Townships in Centre County, Pennsylvania, are experiencing increases in population, housing development and other infrastructure development. In order to set pace with the current and future growth in the three townships, it is necessary to plan and implement a well thought-out 10

14 and integrated solid waste and recycling management system. Integrated waste management systems involving multiple municipalities and/or a relatively large planning and geographic service area is often referred to as a regional system. For the purpose of this study, references to the regional system will usually include SBW and regional may also include the surrounding Centre County region and possibly other nearby counties that in some way support (via infrastructure, waste and recycling markets, etc.) this multi-municipal waste management program. Each of the three townships are unique, but because of their proximity and similarities in land use, economic conditions, roadway infrastructure and location, a combined effort for solid waste management will be beneficial. Municipal boundaries should not be an insurmountable barrier to effective waste management strategies. Based around the concept of economies of scale 1, regionalization will allow for improved efficiencies in transportation, improved economics, reduced traffic, reduced environmental impacts, enhanced municipal cooperation and business relationships, higher levels of service, lower residential costs and many other tangible and less tangible short and long term benefits. This study is an evaluation of a cooperative waste management system that could be implemented in SBW. Identifying the implementing entity for this regional program will be essential for success. It will also be important to identify the components of the municipal waste management systems that can be standardized so that implementation is efficient and not overly complex. This evaluation is broken into two parts: Regional Waste and Recycling Programs and Regional Leaf and Yard Waste Management. Collection of waste and recyclables requires considerably different management strategies than organics collection and composting. For each of the components, GF examined the existing programs, studied the potential options and recommended a program structure. Conclusions can be found at the end of the Report. 1 Economies of scale: the process by which an increase in the scale of the service area (i.e. number of units serviced) can decrease the average cost per unit; recognizing many system costs are fixed. 11

15 PART 1 REGIONAL WASTE AND RECYCLING STUDY The following sections in Part 1 describe the Spring, Benner and Walker Township (SBW) waste management and recycling programs. Leaf and yard waste management programs are covered in Part 2 of this Report. 3.0 EXISTING WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RECYCLING PROGRAMS This study is focused in Centre County, Pennsylvania, in which the Centre County Solid Waste Authority (CCSWA) plays an active role in guiding waste management activities. According to 2005 estimates, the entire county has 124,263 residents living in 51,888 households. This equates to an average of 2.4 residents per household. Waste is accepted for $66 per ton at the CCSWA Transfer Station from major portions of the county through private haulers. GF studied and described the existing waste management and recycling programs in all three Townships. Appendix A includes a listing of local haulers and a summary of a waste hauler survey that was completed as part of this study. The program features for each municipality are compared in the table included in Appendix B. The following sections describe the existing waste management programs. 3.1 Spring Township Waste Management Spring Township is located in Centre County, Pennsylvania, between Benner and Walker Townships (refer to Figure 1). Spring Township surrounds the Borough of Bellefonte. The Township has 6,557 residents based on 2005 population estimates from the Centre County Planning & Community Development Office. The Township is nearly 26 square miles and has a housing density of approximately 100 households per square mile. There are approximately 2,730 households (calculated using the 2.4 persons per household). Spring Township currently has a private subscription waste collection program where residents independently subscribe with one of several local waste haulers. Waste is collected once per week. Based on discussions with the Township in June 2007, it is estimated that approximately 90 percent of households subscribe for waste collection service, and the remaining 10 percent do not secure waste collection services with a local hauler. Likely, the 10 percent without service burn, bury, illegally dump items, take material to the transfer station, or even share service with one or more households that pay for service. According to our hauler survey findings, Spring Township residents, who do pay for service, pay about $23 per household per month on average for trash and recycling service Spring Township Recycling Spring Township is not mandated by the Municipal Waste Planning, Recycling and Waste Reduction Act of 1988 (Act 101) to provide curbside recycling services. However, curbside recycling in Spring Township is mandated by ordinance for all residential establishments (refer 12

16 to Appendix C). Commercial establishments are not required by ordinance to implement curbside recycling. Commercial establishments that elect to implement their own recycling plan are required to file an individual recycling program with the Township. Residential curbside recycling service is provided by the Centre County Solid Waste Authority (CCSWA) and delivered to the CCSWA s recycling facility on Transfer Road in Bellefonte. Residents use 14-gallon recycling containers for collection of recyclables. Recyclables accepted include: clear, brown and green glass bottles plastic bottles and jugs aluminum cans steel cans paper including newspaper, magazines, office paper and junk mail. The Township does not host a public recyclables drop-off site, but residents are permitted to use the CCSWA Transfer facility and recyclables drop-off located at 253 Transfer Road. The CCSWA recorded tons of recyclables collected in the Township during 2006, versus 1,565 tons of waste. By dividing the tons of recycling by the total generation (waste plus recycling), a recycling rate of 11 percent is calculated. Total generation does not include illegally disposed waste. 3.2 Benner Township Waste Management Benner Township is located in Centre County to the west of Spring Township. The Township has 5,422 residents and approximately 2,260 households based on 2005 population estimates from the Centre County Planning & Community Development Office. The Township is 28.5 square miles and has a housing density of approximately 78 households per square mile. The Township has a private subscription waste collection program where residents independently subscribe with one of several local haulers. As an example, John Glenn provides once-per-week waste collection services and offers onceper-week recyclables collection service. The cost for combined weekly waste and recycling service is $22.50 per month. Trash is limited to weekly collection of two 33-gallon bags. John Glenn currently accepts glass containers, and steel and aluminum cans for recycling. Benner Township has a dumping ordinance in place to regulate accumulation of waste in the Township. The Township has had problems with illegal dumping of municipal waste from Township residents as well as from residents and private contractors from outside the Township. Based on discussions with the Township in June 2007, roughly 15 percent of households may not subscribe for waste collection service. As reported by the Township, residents without waste service contribute to improper management of waste including trash accumulation on properties. The Township has an anti-burning ordinance, but burning continues to be a problem in the Township based on observations and complaints received. The Township has limited staff available to address and enforce proper waste management. The Centre County Solid Waste Authority can assist with the prosecution of County-level illegal waste management activities. 13

17 3.2.1 Benner Township Recycling The Township is not mandated by Act 101 to provide curbside recycling services and does not implement a mandatory or voluntary curbside recycling program. As noted above, at least one local hauler offers residents the option to have curbside recycling services in addition waste pickup. There is one drop-off recycling location at the Benner Township Building on Route 550. This drop-off accepts: plastic bottles and jugs clear, green and brown glass bottles steel and aluminum cans paper including newspapers, magazines, and junk mail. As reported for 2006 by the CCSWA, Benner Township recycled tons, with waste disposal tonnages at 1,871. By dividing the tons of recycling by the total generation (waste plus recycling), a recycling rate of 6 percent is calculated. Total generation does not include illegally disposed waste. 3.3 Walker Township Waste Management Walker Township is located in Centre County, Pennsylvania to the east of Spring Township. The Township has 3,745 residents and approximately 1,560 households based on 2005 population estimates from the Centre County Planning & Community Development Office. The Township is 40.5 square miles and has a housing density of approximately 34 households per square mile. Residents privately subscribe for curbside waste collection services with one of several local private haulers. The Township does not have a solid waste ordinance. On average, Walker Township residents pay about $23 per household per month according to our hauler survey Walker Township Recycling Walker Township does not have a voluntary or mandatory curbside recycling program. Residents can utilize one of two recyclable drop-off locations provided by the Centre County Solid Waste Authority. One is at the Walker Township Building which is located at 816 Nittany Valley Drive in Bellefonte or the Marion-Walker Elementary School on 100 School Drive in Bellefonte. Both drop-off sites accept: clear, brown and green glass bottles plastic bottles and jugs aluminum cans steel cans paper (newspaper, magazines, office paper and junk mail) The CCSWA reported 71.1 tons of recycling for the calendar year Anecdotally, waste from Walker Township does not flow totally to the CCSWA Transfer Station, but into Clinton County, hence determining a recycling rate based on actual disposal tonnages is not possible. CCSWA estimates that the estimated Walker Township recycling rate is approximately 6 percent. 14

18 3.4 Survey of Local Waste Hauling Companies Municipal surveys and case studies from Pennsylvania municipalities in the region show the average contracted cost for a contracted waste collection and recycling program ranges from $12 - $16 per household per month with higher rates in areas where disposal tip fees are higher (like eastern Pennsylvania). To verify waste and recycling services and prices offered by local waste hauling companies servicing residential customers in SBW, GF conducted a telephone survey in July, The survey is summarized in a table included in Appendix A. GF was able to obtain information from five haulers in the region. Highlights of the survey: All respondents collected wastes weekly. The highest monthly fee assessed was $24.00 with the lowest $ $23.00 is the approx. average cost for individual subscription per household per month. Two haulers provided recycling services included in the price for refuse collection, while the others did not offer recycling. Veolia collects unlimited bags of refuse, while the majority of other haulers limited the number of bags collected each pickup. GF believes these set out limits are high (e.g. 4 or more bags per week) and can discourage recycling efforts. Haulers typically charged additional per-item fees (varies, but might average $25) for special collections for tires, furniture, appliances or other bulky or special handling wastes. 3.5 Comparison of Existing Municipal Programs The effective implementation of a multi-municipal waste collection program will require consistency among participating municipalities and municipal programs. Therefore, it is important to compare the existing (and non-existing) waste collection system features for SBW (refer to Appendix B). This table can be used as an indicator for identifying what each municipality needs to achieve a more standardized regional waste and recycling program. Highlights of the comparison: Only Spring Township mandates waste collection (via ordinance), provides enforcement provisions and requires hauler licensing. Only Spring Township mandates recycling (via ordinance), includes a commercial recycling provision and requires licensing of recycling haulers. Only Benner Township addresses illegal dumping, littering and burning through an ordinance. None of the three municipalities are mandated by Act 101 to implement curbside recycling programs. Benner and Walker Townships host drop-off recycling programs. 15

19 3.6 Deficiencies of Existing Individual Subscription Waste Management Programs GF has identified several deficiencies in the existing individual subscription system for waste management in SBW. There appears to be inefficient multi-hauler route overlap and a wide variability in collection methods and programs. Residential trash fees are high when compared to other municipalities in the county and throughout the state. The average rate is estimated at $276 per year per household. The multi-hauler system contributes to public nuisances (noise, traffic, road damage, etc.) and other environmental effects from increased truck traffic These systems contribute to degraded aesthetics of the community since less than optimal waste management practices persist (e.g littering, illegal dumping and burning). Improper waste disposal including burning and dumping are common and are not easily or actively enforced. Collection programs to manage special materials like bulky wastes, tires and white goods are limited and are usually an additional per-item fee charged to residents. Waste and recycling education is limited and only marginally effective. For a variety of reasons, recycling is not a priority as reflected by the poor recycling rates that hover between 6 and 11 percent, far below the State s 35 percent recycling goal. This open system allows many households to illegally dispose of waste without paying for trash service. There is no system for residents to be held accountable for improper waste disposal. There are few measures and little planning to address increased wastes generated by the current and future growth in the three townships. 4.0 REGIONAL WASTE COLLECTION AND RECYCLING SERVICES Due to the complexity and variability of waste collection programs and cooperative municipal arrangements, there are many multi-municipal waste management scenarios that could be implemented in, and benefit SBW. Prior to expanding upon several selected multi-municipal waste management program alternatives in the following sections of this report, GF has provided justifications, implementation considerations, and a recommended waste management program structure for a regional waste system. 4.1 Why Cooperate? Many Pennsylvania municipalities have determined that cooperative efforts with other municipalities are in the best interests of the residents, elected officials and the regional community. Basic reasons to work cooperatively with other municipalities include improving efficiency and program performance, and reducing costs. While each Township is unique, they are interdependent. Township lines have very little to do with how our citizens interrelate with their families, work, school, and/or retail establishments. Economic and demographic factors influence whether a resident lives in one township or borough, shops in another, and sends their children to school in yet another. Natural boundaries, like rivers and mountains are more tangible barriers than municipal boundaries that influence where residents live and how business is conducted. 16

20 Intergovernmental cooperation can improve the economies of scale for the Townships and create other benefits and opportunities. Multi-municipal cooperation helps to reach critical thresholds, distribute overhead costs, and maximize use of capital equipment, facilities, staff and other resources. Effectiveness of the services provided is also affected by the limited resources, including available staff of a single municipality. Joint efforts increase labor resources, especially for specialized skill sets like knowledgeable management of waste and recycling programs. Regionalization of programs is effective when dealing with large numbers of customers, purchasing and maintaining expensive specialized equipment, and handling day-today operations of a program. 4.2 Why Regionalize Waste Management and Recycling? Developing a regionalized, integrated solid waste management system in SBW will be beneficial for municipal officials and the residents in both the short and long term. In the short term, immediate benefits will result from planned collection routes over a larger geographic area that will reduce costs of the new residential waste collection program. There will be a reduced burden on area roadways, improved quality or level of service, and improved waste reduction and recycling performance. Residents who don t pay for service now will now be accounted for through an affordable and fair program that assures waste is disposed properly. Future economic development of the three Townships can be managed more efficiently in a structured and well organized waste management program. Long term improvements will be an extension of the short term benefits via a sustainable, cost effective program that performs more efficiently with time. Regionalization of waste management and recycling services improves the following: Economics (lower cost to residents) o A competitive bidding process will reduce costs while increasing the level of service beyond what is currently provided. o A larger service area creates a better economy of scale for effective collection. o Volume and tonnage of wastes/recyclables are more predictable and profitable for haulers. o Equipment sharing can be conducted in municipal collection efforts. o Cost/capital investment sharing will happen among the participating townships. o Overall system management will have fewer requirements for the implementing municipalities. o Haulers can cost effectively utilize labor resources in a larger, more concentrated collection area. Convenience to residents o Waste and recycling collection can be required to be provided on the same day. o Using a single hauler will reduce truck traffic and require fewer days when waste receptacles, cans, or bags are placed on the streets. 17

21 Administration o Overall program administration is much more comprehensive but this is largely a function of the executed waste contract, not excessive time by municipal staff. Reduced pollution/energy and natural resource savings o Reduced emissions and reduced gas consumption. Transportation reduced traffic and nuisances o Haulers will be able to create more effective collection routes, reaping a larger volume of wastes within a given geographic area. A regional system will also increase collection efficiency for the overall collection system through planned routes and "house-to-house" collection rather than sporadic routes in a multi-hauler system. o Fuel and labor efficiencies are improved through a regionalized waste collection effort. o Less traffic from garbage trucks will reduce public nuisances and lessen ongoing impact to streets, alleys and infrastructure (one garbage vehicle is comparable to 300 cars in terms of impact). Education or promotion of the program o Uniform collection requirements within a region allow for a more effective and cost efficient education program. Planned regional growth/ development of waste/recycling programs long-term outlook. Enforcement Existing waste and recycling enforcement in SBW is very limited. In the regional program, enforcement will improve since waste service will be provided under a service contract. Ability to educate/communicate - The ability to educate the residents or users of the program is crucial to the success of the program, but it is noted that a regionalized waste program will simplify and facilitate the education process. Cooperative education efforts should be evaluated in the planning stage. Costs and efforts for education can be shared among the municipalities. Distance to the disposal or transfer site - Local haulers will rely on the local disposal/transfer facilities to minimize fuel costs, truck travel, and labor savings. Housing density Higher housing density and shorter distances between stops usually correlates to effective collection routes and reduced collection costs for haulers. Housing density may dictate the establishment of collection districts that may not include all households in a municipality, but act as a service area or zone. Topography/roadways - Hauling routes are dramatically affected by steep grades, narrow streets, or other topographic restrictions. Existing collections - Proximity of the municipality to other areas served by the contracted hauler is desired for efficient collection. 18

22 4.3 Considerations for Implementing a Regional Waste and Recycling Contract The following criteria or conditions are believed to influence/impact the successful implementation of a cooperative, multi-municipal arrangement for curbside waste and recycling services. Public opposition to change A primary barrier to any new waste management system will be public opinions concerning the change. It is critically important the elected officials become educated on these complex issues and understand the importance of the long term benefits that will be provided to their residents. A vocal minority should not decide the outcome of this very important planning process, which will be determined by the elected officials. Consistency among waste systems - Waste management systems in the three Townships should begin with consistent program structures supported by ordinances. Ordinances should define collection methods and specify the waste streams to be collected, managed and processed. Program features and economics for each Township should be similar to maximize the benefits of the partnership. A single, agreed upon implementing mechanism must be chosen to represent the interests of all three municipalities. Consistency of recyclables management - As with waste management, SBW should have consistent ordinances governing recycling. The collection methods and materials should be consistent. Willingness to cooperate - SBW must be committed to work together for a regional program, and keep focused on the benefit potential for the regional community. Working cooperatively to select a sound implement mechanism and waste program structure will be a key to success. Demographics - SBW demographics, for the most part, are strongly suited for a regional waste management program. Addressing rural service areas in Walker Township and in other areas is simply a part of the planning process. Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) SBW should weigh the pros and cons and consider incorporating a PAYT waste structure into the regional contract waste system. PAYT is discussed in more detail in Section Advantages of a Regional Waste and Recycling Contract As opposed to continuation of the existing individual subscription system for waste and recycling management, establishing a regional contract would provide the following advantages: Decreased costs It is GF s experience that bidding and contracting waste and recycling service will reduce the amount of residential waste bills by at least 20 to 35 percent and will remain costcompetitive on an ongoing basis. Equitable service and customer accountability In the current private subscription system in SBW, an unknown but appreciable number of households do not have trash service and 19

23 contribute to illegal waste management practices. The contracted system would ensure all customers would be required to pay the same fair price for trash and recycling service and would be accountable for proper waste and recyclables management. Increased collection efficiency - Using a contracted hauler system will improve collection efficiency through planned collection routes. It will reduce the amount of truck traffic, the number of collection days, and the labor resources needed to collect waste and recyclables. Increased services The current system does not in any way specify that all residents receive curbside recycling services, bulk waste collection, brush collection, and/or educational services. Establishing a regional contract could prescribe these services for all residents equally, and as discussed in later sections of this report, will likely decrease costs, while increasing these services. Community benefits The SBW Region and residents will experience improved safety, health and welfare, reduced environmental harms and improved community appearance/aesthetics through better waste management and a sizeable reduction in the number of garbage trucks, duplicate routes and associated nuisances. Enforceability Enforcing one, and possibly two service providers in a standardized system will be simplified and effective when compared with the current multi-hauler system. Increased recycling The addition of curbside recycling to all (or most) residents in SBW will dramatically increase recycling rates in the region. Implementation of a PAYT program will result in a higher diversion of recyclable materials than in other program structures. Should the Townships implement curbside recycling, it is likely that the total recycling rate (for curbside and non-curbside materials) would increase to 35 percent, which is the State recycling goal. The nearby municipalities involved in the regional Centre Region COG contract report a 35 percent recycling rate. The current recycling rates range from 6 percent in Walker and Benner Townships to 11 percent in Spring Township. Recycling tonnages 8,000 based on 2006 figures and reported by the CCSWA, reflect 7,000 approximately 1,158 tons 6,000 recovered over a 3-year term. 5,000 Should a program be implemented 4,000 that would address recycling 3,000 regionally in conjunction with waste collection, it is projected 2,000 that the region would realize a 35 1,000 percent recycling rate or have the 0 potential for 7,500 tons to be recovered. 20